Abstract

The recent advances in remote data acquisition of the earths surface and the movement of animals fundamentally improved our understanding of the relationships between changing environmental conditions and the positioning of animals. In ungulates the positioning in space largely varies along with the temporal availability of resources, resulting in diverse movement tactics. Remarkably, movement tactics not just vary among species but also within populations and even within individuals. However, the principles leading to this variation remain rather undiscovered, although their understanding will be crucial to sustain wildlife under the future challenges of climate change and increased land-use. Combining high-resolution and long-term data on vegetation and the movement of three ungulate species, we exemplary demonstrate how remote sensing helps to identify and understand resource tracking and, thus, can scientifically guide policy development for the future of wild animals.

Novelty

We show that identifying and quantifying so called resource tracking in ungulates will largely benefit from precise remote sensing and animal tracking data. For this we use Landsat and Sentinel NDVI time series and field observations to map 13 vegetation types at a 30 m x 30 m resolution in a semi-arid savanna landscape (Fig.: 1).

Results of vegetation classification based on remote sensing (NDVI from Sentinel-2 and Landsat-8 missions) for the study area. Classified vegetation types and abbreviations are shown in the legend.

Figure 1: Results of vegetation classification based on remote sensing (NDVI from Sentinel-2 and Landsat-8 missions) for the study area. Classified vegetation types and abbreviations are shown in the legend.

We then use over 2 years of animal tracking data from 24 individuals of three antelope species (springbok, kudu, eland) at a high temporal resolution (GPS positions every 5 - 15 minutes) to identify movement phases (Fig.: 2) and foraging patches (Fig.: 3) .

Example movement data of one group of eland for two years (panels). Single movement phases shown in different colors indicating the main vegetation used. Vegetative composition of foraging patches per movement phase shown in pie charts. Same colors used as in  Fig. 1.

Figure 2: Example movement data of one group of eland for two years (panels). Single movement phases shown in different colors indicating the main vegetation used. Vegetative composition of foraging patches per movement phase shown in pie charts. Same colors used as in Fig. 1.

Example of foraging patch identification. Selected patches (orange pixels) are identified only when the individuals were active but relatively slow.

Figure 3: Example of foraging patch identification. Selected patches (orange pixels) are identified only when the individuals were active but relatively slow.

From the vegetation type specific foraging data, we then derive dynamics in vegetation greenness of the patches (Fig. 4) which allows to identify patterns of resource tracking precisely. For instance, in 2021 a group of eland (the largest antelope species) foraged on a grassland patches (Fig. 4, light green phase in April 2021) right after the peak in greenness when biomass is highest and thus energy intake maximizes. This finding matches theory perfectly.

Example of greenness dynamics on foraging patches. Foreground lines indicate greenness at the time the individual was on the patch and background lines indicate the following dynamics in greenness on that patch. Error bars at bottom display movement phases with color indicating main vegetation used during the respective phase. Same colors used as in  Fig.: 1.

Figure 4: Example of greenness dynamics on foraging patches. Foreground lines indicate greenness at the time the individual was on the patch and background lines indicate the following dynamics in greenness on that patch. Error bars at bottom display movement phases with color indicating main vegetation used during the respective phase. Same colors used as in Fig.: 1.

With further examples demonstrating theoretical predictions of resource tracking we illustrate the possible insights on ungulate movement ecology when high-resolution satellite imagery is combined with time series analysis and high-resolution animal tracking data and discuss current restrictions when only coarse remote sensing data is used. Further we will discuss the implications of our findings in the light of changing environmental conditions and future conservation policies to protect migratory movements and the associated ecosystem services.

Tracking video

An example video of the tracking data. Note the fence lines have gaps (Hering, Hauptfleisch, Jago, et al. 2022) and that water points (blue dots) pop-up every time they got visited. Graph on bottom shows mean soil adjusted vegetation index (like NDVI but adjusted for arid environments accounting for bare ground) as shaded points and individual daily averages as colored lines. One second in the video corresponds to 3 days of movement data which makes 10 seconds / month.

Further reading

Abrahms, Briana, Ellen O. Aikens, Jonathan B. Armstrong, William W. Deacy, Matthew J. Kauffman, and Jerod A. Merkle. 2021. “Emerging Perspectives on Resource Tracking and Animal Movement Ecology.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 36: 308–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.10.018.
Esmaeili, Saeideh, Brett R. Jesmer, Shannon E. Albeke, Ellen O. Aikens, Kathryn A. Schoenecker, Sarah R. B. King, Briana Abrahms, et al. 2021. “Body Size and Digestive System Shape Resource Selection by Ungulates: A Cross‐taxa Test of the Forage Maturation Hypothesis.” Edited by Jean‐Michel Gaillard. Ecology Letters 00 (July): ele.13848. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13848.
Fryxell, J. M. 1991. “Forage Quality and Aggregation by Large Herbivores.” American Naturalist 138 (October): 478–98. https://doi.org/10.1086/285227.
Hering, Robert, Morgan Hauptfleisch, Mark Jago, Taylor Smith, Stephanie Kramer-Schadt, Jonas Stiegler, and Niels Blaum. 2022. “Don’t Stop Me Now: Managed Fence Gaps Could Allow Migratory Ungulates to Track Dynamic Resources and Reduce Fence Related Energy Loss.” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 10 (July). https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.907079.
Hering, Robert, Morgan Hauptfleisch, Stephanie Kramer-Schadt, Jonas Stiegler, and Niels Blaum. 2022. “Effects of Fences and Fence Gaps on the Movement Behavior of Three Southern African Antelope Species.” Frontiers in Conservation Science 3 (October). https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2022.959423.
Nathan, Ran, Christopher T. Monk, Robert Arlinghaus, Timo Adam, Josep Alós, Michael Assaf, Henrik Baktoft, et al. 2022. “Big-Data Approaches Lead to an Increased Understanding of the Ecology of Animal Movement.” Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg1780.
Ortega, Anna C., Ellen O. Aikens, Jerod A. Merkle, Kevin L. Monteith, and Matthew J. Kauffman. 2023. “Migrating Mule Deer Compensate En Route for Phenological Mismatches.” Nature Communications 14 (April): 2008. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37750-z.
Owen-Smith, N., J. M. Fryxell, and E. H. Merrill. 2010. “Foraging Theory Upscaled: The Behavioural Ecology of Herbivore Movement.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365 (July): 2267–78. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0095.
Piao, Shilong, Qiang Liu, Anping Chen, Ivan A. Janssens, Yongshuo Fu, Junhu Dai, Lingli Liu, Xu Lian, Miaogen Shen, and Xiaolin Zhu. 2019. “Plant Phenology and Global Climate Change: Current Progresses and Challenges.” Global Change Biology 25 (June): 1922–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14619.
Xu, Wenjing, Kristin Barker, Avery Shawler, Amy Van Scoyoc, Justine A. Smith, Thomas Mueller, Hall Sawyer, et al. 2021. “The Plasticity of Ungulate Migration in a Changing World.” Ecology 102 (April). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3293.
Zuckerman, Gabriel R., Kristin J. Barker, Laura C. Gigliotti, Eric K. Cole, Justin A. Gude, Mark A. Hurley, Matthew J. Kauffman, et al. 2023. “Diverse Migratory Portfolios Drive Inter-Annual Switching Behavior of Elk Across the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.” Ecosphere 14 (May): e4502. https://doi.org/10.1002/ECS2.4502.